User talk:EPO

Image:Jessica Alba cannes.jpg

Thank you for your comments and for wanting to use my picture. I appreciate that you ask me about it. No problem, feel free to upload it to the commons if you want to. Please just observe the Copyright. Philippe Baledent

Hello, I think the image is already on the Commons, otherwise I would not have been able to include it on her bio...

Anyway, if you need this picture or any other from my websites www.biosstars.com www.biosstars.us or www.biosstars-mx.com I can email it to you, I would just ask you to mention the corresponding copyright Biosstars Philippe Baledent.

Notification for image

As you deal with image sources license because you are "Against Fair Use Wikipedian" classificated, I hope you know how to treat these coincidence or at least maybe what to do or who to pass this affaire to:

image:Quads.jpg = External link

Greetings from Galicia to your København mermaid, (NW Iberian Peninsula). --Sobreira 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehmm... Not sure what you mean.. The sxc-warning requires explicit permission from the original uploader. So that would be User creactions.. --|EPO| 09:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aaswelaz.jpg

Thank you for your help, kindly assist me what to do concerning your comment,the issue is this article is about my father he is a very well known DOP in Egypt, so I wanted to inrich the article with some pics. I got this pic from a site is that ok? this is the link to that site: http://filfan.filbalad.com/movieprofile.asp?Position=4&GalleryID=1&PageNo=8&MovieID=2321

Thanks again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttelmissany (talk • contribs)

The film and therefore also stillpictures of the film are copyrighted. Most likely the rights belongs to the company that has filmed it. But in the United States it is allowed to show small copyrighted images under certain conditions. E.g. for informational or educational purposes. This is called "fair use". When using this special "fair use" you must explain why you feel it is fair use - a "fair use rationale". It is important to point out that the film and stillimages are copyrighted.

So you need to write on the image page where you got that image from and who the rights belongs to. Then you can write a fair use rationale. See also Wikipedi:Fair use and Help:Image page#Fair use rationale. --|EPO| 13:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Just so you're aware, conflict of interest is NOT a speedy deletion reason. I did delete the article you had tagged as such as a non-notable biography. Please take a minute to read WP:CSD and understand the criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks, Metros232 13:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit.

I do not care at all if the image is deleted, my only edit to it was to remove what was a clear copyright violation from the image. However, your comment is a bit off the mark: PD-art is the template that references Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., it's not making the claim that the collage is art, but rather explaining that a website which merely mechanically reproduced a PD image can not effectively claim copyright over their reproduction... i.e. why the underlying images are public domain. Considering that Image:Juri_Gagarin_2.jpg has been deleted, it would appear if something is wrong with the claim, so I would agree that the image should by modified or deleted, but your comment on PD-art is off the mark. If I were someone interested in opposing the removal of the image, your commentary on PD art would have given me a great opportunity to argue with you. ;) --Gmaxwell 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand and agree the use of the template. But in this case I suppose it could be used for three of the images. But as for the complete image I do not support the use of that template. That is what my comment is about. Guess it could have been written more precise.

And I am fully aware of your edit - that is why I did not post the notice template on your talk page, but on the original uploader's. --|EPO| 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was orphan bot that caught my attention.[1]. :) Fair enough. --Gmaxwell 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was File:CentrifCompressorCross-sect.png deleted?

EPO: I have just learned that you deleted or removed the File:CentrifCompressorCross-sect.png about a week ago for some reason.

That drawing came from a page on the website of the Sundyne Company, whom I presume were the originators of the drawing and therefore the copyright holders. I exchanged a series of emails with them asking for them to grant Wikipedia a GFDL license to use the drawing.

On January 29th, 2007, Mr. Tom Maceyka (the Business Manager of the Sundyne Company) sent me an email granting the GFDL license I had requested. On that same day, I uploaded the image and I also sent an email to Permissions@wikimedia.org to which I attached my exchange of emails with Mr. Tom Maceyka of Sundyne (including the one in which he granted the GFDL license). On February 15th, I received an email from Permissions@wikimedia.org thanking me for the information that I had sent them.

In view of the above information, I don't understand why you deleted the subject image. Would you please explain why? And also how can I get it re-instated as a valid image?

If you will give me your email address, I will send you all of the above emails with the Sundyne Company and also the emails with Permissions@wikimedia.org.

Please let me hear from you as soon as possible. My email address is mbeychok@cox.net and my user name is Mbeychok both here on Commons and on the English Wikipedia. - Mbeychok 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commons:User:Kelly Martin removed the license and tagged it such February 15th. This was explained on the image page:

"Upon review of the email conversation between Mbeychok and the copyright holder, I am unconvinced of the intent of the copyright holder to release this content under the GFDL. I have therefore removed the licensing statement and tagged this image as unlicensed."

I deleted it this morning (local time) because the image had been without license for at least 7 days. So I suggest you contact Kelly Martin to sort things out. --|EPO| 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your prompt response. Do you have any idea as to why Kelly Martin was unconvinced that the Sundyne company intended to garant an GFDL license? Their email very clearly granted the license. Is it common practice to do what Keely Martin did without even notifying me? My name was clearly disclosed as the one who had uploaded the image. Thanks again and I would appreciate any help you can give me in this matter. As an administrator, I could really use any guidance or help from you. - mbeychok 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. One problem could be that the OTRS ticket in question does not show you explaining the details of GFDL. Though you do provide a link to the English Wikipedia text.

But the above is merely a wild guess. You should contact User:Kelly Martin for further details. Not sure I can help you more on this subject. --|EPO| 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Images

I have noticed you have uploaded some photos from Google Earth claiming own work. But unless you own the satellites who have taken the original photos you are not allowed to claim own work for your screenshots.

Therefore I am marking these as copyright violations. Please make sure you understand the copyright policies and laws. --|EPO| 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i ment by "won work" that i took the shot by copying the screen , i even left the signeture of Google and the location pointers , is there any other way not to lose the images? changing the licenses for example ? Ammar 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a lower resolution you might claim fair use. But in the current resolution I believe these are violating copyrights. But since I'm no expert on fair use you should contact one with better understanding for the topic. --|EPO| 19:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i believe its already lower resolution , the original image was .BMP , and then i converted it to .JPG , too much quality has been lost already Ammar 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WAAC.png

Please explain the lack of source. It has a Public domain template specifying that it was taken by a USAF employee, which makes it public information. The image was grabbed from the AFPAM36-2241v1 PME Study guide http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afpam36-2241v1/afpam36-2241v1.pdf, a public document published in electronic and physical form by the USAF, and military branch of the United States Government. Since it is funded by tax dollars, all information not protected by security classification is public domain. Cfpresley 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough just to add a template. In this case it is claimed to be a work of the US government. But with no link to a US government website the license cannot be verified. That is basically what the notice on your talk page specifies.

Now this link you provide me is clearly a US government source as it is a work of the air force. If you had provided this link at first there would be no problems. --|EPO| 19:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HKP1944.jpg

Hello EPO

I've noticed that you have removed the image of the HKP forced labor camp from the article on Karl Plagge and also from the rlated article on the HKP camp itself (Image:HKP1944.jpg). This image is in the public domain and is widely used by museums, historians and is also found in my book "The Search for Major Plagge" published by Fordham University Press. I was wondering if you could explain why you removed it. I would ask that in your reply you take into account that I am not a veteran Wikipedian and am often quite confused by the terms used by discussions of edits. -Many Thanks, MichaelDG

I removed the image from the article as it was deleted on Commons. Here it was nominated for deletion January 18th as there was neither a license tag or a source. Due to this I deleted the image on January 26th.

Your talk page on Commons also has a warning about this dated January 18th. --|EPO| 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please help me to follow the rules

Hi. You left a message on my talk page about an image that I loaded. I thought that fair use meant it was OK for me to do such a thing, which is why I put the fair use clause on the image page.

Please explain to me what I can do to fix this. I want to follow the rules.

Is the image too big? Because I can replace it with a smaller image.

Was I supposed to list the URL of where I got the image from? Because I can do that too.

I thought fair use meant that what I did was OK. I want to follow the rules. Please tell me what I need to do to solve this problem.

Thank you!Grundle2600 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had three problems actually - but I only marked the two of them.

In order to claim fair use for an image it must be provided in a low resolution. This only to illustrate a point and not to view e.g. a magazine cover and its text.

Also a source for where the image has been found must be provided. This for others to seek information about the image in question. So please also write who owns the copyright.

Last you must provide a fair use rationale.

Please also read Wikipedia:Non-free content to understand what fair use actually means. --|EPO| 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I replaced it with a much smaller image. I gave a link to the souce. I mentioned the owner of the copyright. I added the fair use clause, but I had already put that in originally.

Anyway, I hope it's OK now. Please let me know if it's OK or not. Thank you.Grundle2600 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template claiming fair use is not enough. You must also write a fair use rationale on the image description page. This can best be described as being answer to the question "Why is this fair use?".

See also the two links above. --|EPO| 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks again. I fixed it.Grundle2600 20:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saxo Chr P front version 002.jpg

Sorry to be a bother, but would you mind deleting this image? It is PD-art and I've replaced it with a better resolution version, I've scanned myself. Only, a bot doesn't seem to like the idea. Cheers. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy yo help you out if I was an administrator on English Wikipedia - but I unfortunately I am not. You will therefore need to contact a user who actually is administrator on English Wikipedia. A complete list can be found at Wikipedia:List of administrators. --|EPO| ^da: 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Looks like I did a nice job messing up Commons and en: Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

As you may know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vedkommer 'Transport i Police', Polen (dansk Wikipedia)

En lufthavn er i Goleniów en andre by ved Stettin og Police (Polen) (in engelsk Wikipedia: Police, Poland), nej i Police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.42.50 (talk • contribs)

Jeg rettede artiklen til, da den dels intet havde med kommunikation at gøre, primært var (og er) en listeartikel, samt var fyldt med sproglige fejl. En af disse sprogfejl var ordet "havehavn", der ikke findes på dansk. Jeg aner fortsat ikke, hvad en "havehavn" skal betyde, men "lufthavn" var blot et ukvalificeret gæt.

Du er flere gange før blevet blokeret i kortere tid, da du tydeligvis ikke reagerer på de beskeder du får. De artikler du skriver er uden sammenhængde artikeltekst, men udelukkende lange opremsninger. Foruden dette er artiklerne fyldt med mange forskellige sprogfejl. Vær venlig at læse din brugerdiskussionsside og svare. --|EPO| ^da: 19:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided

to not try and create Fair use arguments for my pictures of American sculpture, being more or less content to have them be deleted. You probably want to go through the American section of the List of equestrian statues article and slash and burn away, after, of course, removing the rest of my work from the Gutzon Borglum article. I was interested to discover this note, "Those who repeatedly post copyrighted material will be blocked from further editing." and since I have posted dozens, perhaps hundreds of these images, . . ..... who knows? Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your tip. I will take a closer look at the list once an ongoing discussion has been finished. --|EPO| ^da: 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elam-tar.jpg

Hi, EPO

I see you are disputing the authorship of the above image. I have no problem with this, but I feel you are approaching the problem in the wrong way: you are claiming that there is no source information (the text on the author's talk page insists that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content), while this is not the case. Perhaps there is a source/authorship disputed template that can be used instead (or created)? Regards, Anrie (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

A better template to use might be the {{subst:npd}}. This template is used for disputing the right to release the image under the selected license. I will change it immediately. Thanks for the notice. --|EPO| ^da: 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh.. This is not Commons.. :) I will take a look around to see if there is a better template here on English Wikipedia. --|EPO| ^da: 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at Category:Image deletion templates seems like English Wikipedia only operates with lacking sources, licences or fair use images. Might use no license to mark the original one invalid, but so far I believe it fits relatively good with the written comment. --|EPO| ^da: 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulance Photo

What type of photo are you looking for? I may have one available in my personal files, or else be able to get one in short order. Frmatt (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I had in mind was an ambulance with Battenburg pattern from a non-English speaking country. My guess is that the best country would be Sweden.

As you may see on the talk page most of the photos are from USA or United Kingdom. So if you got something good that can replace one of those it would be great. I see you are from Canada. Their designs are much like USA - however if you do have something different to show it could be cool. --|EPO| ^da: 23:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like this: [2]? I've e-mailed the copyright owner/photographer to find out if he would consider donating a photograph that clearly shows the patterns. Frmatt (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a high quality photo - I really like it. And he might have more of that kind so I am looking forward to hear about his reply. --|EPO| ^da: 18:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic names links for you

Library of Congress Authorities search page - has translations, from books
GeoNames server, click search button Djembayz (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quixotic plea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]